These days some Christian men are talking a lot about being, well, Christian men, and a lot of it comes off as a little strange. Mark Driscoll thinks we should be reimagining Christ as a sort of 1st-century badass, shoving his way through Roman-occupied Galilee and giving Pharisees the finger on the way to the Cross. He likes to think that our inheritance from Jesus Eastwood is a life of no-tears faith, rockin’ worship and getting laid. John Piper takes a slightly less aggressive approach. He has long warned that women in leadership roles is an indication of a deep-seated problem with the church, and lately he’s come to the conclusion that God himself gave Christianity a masculine feel, whatever that means, and that women should accept and enjoy that.

So like I said, there’s a fair amount of manliness popping up in churches these days.

This is nothing all that new in American evangelicalism. Dwight Moody said similar things back in the late 1800s, but for far more sensible reasons. The massive shift toward industrialization and urbanization in post-Civil War America kept working men away from home and church for six or seven days out of every week. The work they did was often dirty, dangerous and dehumanizing, and their time off was spent sleeping or drinking. As a result the Christian faith became associated with the women who were its most visible practitioners, and Moody believed that if men were ever going hear a credible expression of the Christian message, preachers were going to have to butch it up a little. He didn’t say anything against women, though. He simply wanted men to feel more welcome—as men—in the Christian culture of the day. We can credit Moody with a part of our contemporary emphasis on reaching out to the marginalized people around us (the working men of Moody’s time), and making them welcome in our midst.

That’s substantially different both in motivation and tone than what Mark Driscoll and John Piper are selling these days. I honestly can’t say that I know what has them in such a state.

What I do know is this. The first two Christian leaders to take me seriously, questions and all, and to model the love of Jesus to me, were women. I grew up in Southern California, not too far from Fuller Seminary, and Kathleen and Mary were pastors-in-training, gaining experience by serving as interns in local churches. What I learned later was that they were also trailblazers, women who were clearly gifted and called by God into ministry, but who had to fight (gently and patiently, as it turned out) for the chance to serve the church—as women—as Ministers of Word and Sacrament. Alongside the passages of Scripture that have been used to fence the pulpit for men only, I also see these two women who helped to shape me into the Christian and pastor I have become.

That’s a pretty significant set of data for my own understanding of how men and women and faith all go together. Here’s another.

When Dustin Hoffman was given the Oscar for Kramer vs. Kramer, he took the statuette, held it up to his eyes, and said: “Just as I thought. This has no genitalia.” I’ve always wanted to say that about God, too. Yes, he reveals himself as Father, and we need to believe that and wrestle with it and continue to pray the Lord’s Prayer as it was given to us. But we don’t have to overconclude from God as Father that he’s limited in any way to one expression of gender, or that somehow, as it seems to follow for Piper and Driscoll, mothers and daughters don’t measure up. We also shouldn’t overwork the traditional understanding of differences between men and women in such a way that limits either from being all that God intends. The kindest, most gently loving person I ever met was a man. Some of the toughest people I know today are women. So what? Those are personal descriptions, not prescriptions, and we forget that simple difference at great cost.

One of my favorite reminders from the Apostle Paul’s writings is that we see now as “through a glass darkly.” I’ve always understood that to mean that here and now, in our fallen and broken state, we aren’t always (or ever) going to grasp the full depth and measure of what the Gospel means in our lives and families and communities. It’s always made me a little suspicious of people who were a little too sure about things. Did they have a clearer glass than I did? The caution here is that we should be careful about letting our politics, or our traditions, or our manhood, obscure our vision any more than it already is. The glass is dark enough already. Let’s not muck it up even more.

So what do I make of all this? What do I—as a man who is also a Christian, a husband, a father and a pastor—what do I teach my son about men and women and Jesus and faith? On the one hand I’m thankful that in my denominational tradition he won’t see the issue in the same conflicted way that I did at his age. But with this resurgence of gender role navel-gazing, especially in its more testosterone-fueled variant, it seems more important than ever to make sure we give our son as clear a sense as possible of our equal value and freedom in Christ.

I choose to do that in stories. I’ll tell him about the way Kathleen took me under her wing when I was the most awkward 10th grader in history. I’ll tell him about how it felt when Mary sang with me and challenged me in college. I’ll tell him that life is best when we are willing to grow and learn from anyone who is willing to pour their lives into ours. I’ll tell him that right now, at 11 years old, I’m praying for someone to come into his life and help make Christ real to him, no matter what they’re packing under the hood (that was for Driscoll). I’ll tell him, well, you get the idea.

Maybe there are masculine qualities to the stories we see in the Bible, but every one of those has to pass through the crucible of Paul’s radical vision for Christian community in Galatians 3:28. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The point of Paul’s vision for the Christian church was for the barriers between us to be crushed and wiped away, not to be shored up and nurtured. That’s the church I want for my son. That’s the kind of Christianity I think we’re meant to enjoy. It’s an aspirational faith, one where we’re not limited by the prejudices and limits we inherit, but one that always moves, slowly at times, toward the joyfully inclusive celebration of the King’s banquet.

7 comments:

You ask "whatever that means", unfortunately Rachel didn't link to the transcript of the talk where piper explains what he means. I saw him to actually correct the Driscollian view of macho, and seemed to me to actually be redefining masculinity as taking responsibilty with sacrificial leadership which allows the ministry of the church, both men & women, to flourish.Perhaps it was unwise to use the term (he seems to have a thing for redefinitions e.g. hedonism) but I think what he meant by it is not what many have just assumed. http://thingsfindothinks.com/2012/02/a-reply-to-rachel-held-evans-a-guest-post-from-my-wife/#comments

That's fine, Andrew, I read the full comments, too. It still begs the very basic question: When did "taking responsibility and sacrificial leadership" become the exclusive province of masculinity? I'm not buying it, and for that matter, I don't approve of selling it, either.

This is excellent, John - a personal, story-laden re-telling of gospel truth that takes Piper/Driscoll/et al to task without bashing. Scot McKnight had more of Piper's talk on his blog tonight and, while the tone was somewhat more measured than a lot of Driscoll's stuff, the overall impact is just plain exhausting. "Masculine" is substituted for "human" over and over again, essentially cutting half the church off the list of all those fine qualities that mark us as redeemed and restored human beings. Such short-sightedness is beyond sad and shortsighted. It is contrary to what I understand to be pretty basic, even orthodox anthropology. Sigh. He has moved way beyond the 'complementarian/egalitarian' debate, seems to me.

John D'Elia

About Me

John was the senior minister of the American International Church in London from 2007-2015. He is a native of California, the fourth of five generations in his family who have lived in Burbank. John was baptized as a child, ordained as an elder, and ordained as a minister on the same spot in the First Presbyterian Church in his hometown.
John has served churches in California and spent a year as a minister at St. Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh. Since 1994 John has worked in the non-profit world. After six years at Union Rescue Mission in Los Angeles, John moved to Fuller Seminary, where he was the director of development for the School of Theology. Next John served with the Presbyterian Foundation, managing its operations for the 13 western states.
The son of two teachers, education was highly valued in John’s family. He earned his B.A. in English Literature at UCLA, and an M.Div. and Th.M. in Church History at Fuller Theological Seminary. In 2005 he was awarded a Ph.D. in History from the University of Stirling in Scotland.